RICHARD W. BLACHARSKI, APPELLANT,
v.
WALTER WATTS, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This case addresses the proper basis for appellate review of a small claims court judgment affirmed by a trial court sitting in appellate capacity. The district court held that without an adequate record of extrinsic evidence presented at trial, the appellate court properly presumed the trial court's judgment correct.
The Circuit Court's affirmance order complied with the essential requirements of law. Without an adequate record of extrinsic evidence, the appellate court properly indulged the presumption of correctness in favor of the trial court's judgment, and it was the appellant's responsibility to present an adequate record to support the appeal.
[1] An appellate court may treat an improper appeal from a circuit court's appellate order as a petition for common law certiorari.
[2] The scope of common law certiorari review is limited to determining whether the lower court exceeded its jurisdiction or deviated from the essential requirements of law.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The scope of such review is limited to a determination from the face of the record whether the lower court exceeded its jurisdiction or otherwise deviated from the essential requirements of law.”
Establishes the standard for certiorari review of the circuit court's appellate order, requiring consideration of jurisdictional limits and compliance with law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Walter Watts sued defendant Richard Blacharski in Small Claims-Magistrate Court for $1,000 based on two documents: a 'Pre-subscription Agree…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Scope Of Certiorari Review cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County, Florida, sitting in its appellate capacity. The order affirmed a final judgment against the appellant entered by the Small Claims-Magistrate Court for said county. The judgment awarded the plaintiff, Walter Watts, the appellee here, $1,000.00 from the appellant who was the defendant in the trial court.
At the outset we note that this court does not have jurisdiction to review by appeal an order rendered by the Circuit Court sitting in its appellate capacity. Article V, Section 5(3), Florida Constitution 1968, F.S.A. We have elected, however, to treat the proceedings herein as a petition for common law certiorari and will review the order of the circuit court on that basis. The scope of such review is limited to a determination from the face of the record whether the lower court exceeded its jurisdiction or otherwise deviated from the essential requirements of law. Dresner v. City of Tallahassee, Fla.1964, 164 So.2d 208, 210.
From the record before the circuit court it appears that the plaintiff sued the defendant in the Small Claims-Magistrate Court for $1,000.00. His claim was based on two documents. One is entitled, “Pre-subscription Agreement.” It was executed by the plaintiff, the defendant, and John Morían. The other document was drawn on a form designed for use as a promissory note. It was signed by Morían and Thomas F. Navarre, but not by the defendant. The nature of these two documents and the intent of the parties thereto with respect to the defendant’s obligation, if any, to the plaintiff, are not readily apparent from the face of the instruments which are vague and ambiguous in the extreme. Therefore, a record of the extrinsic evidence presented in the trial court was essential to any meaningful review by the circuit court of the final judgment. Unfortunately no such record was presented to the circuit court. This left the court with no alternative but to indulge the presumption of correctness in favor of the trial court’s order and affirm the same on that ground. The circuit court did not avoid its responsibility to review the judgment as appellant here suggests. Rather it is the appellant who failed in his responsibility to present an adequate record for purposes of supporting his appeal. See City of South Bay v. Armstrong, Fla.App.1966, 188 So.2d 21.
*467For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the circuit court’s order of affirmance was in compliance with the essential requirements of law and deny certiorari.
Certiorari denied.
REED, C. J., and WALDEN and OWEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pierson v. Sharp, 283 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…t of the record was not and could not be brought to the court, the appeal was necessarily doomed to failure. While under these circumstances the court would have been justified in merely affirming the judgment, cf. Blacharski v. Watts, Fla.App.1972, 268 So. 2d 465, a dismissal of the appeal was equally justified and accomplished the same end result. There was no departure from the essential requirements of law. Certiorari denied. MAGER and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.…
-
Ciccarelli v. The City OF KEY W., 321 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…se pursuant to Art. V, § 4(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution and Rule 4.5(c) of the Florida Appellate Rules. See State v. Katz, Fla.App.1959, 108 So. 2d 60; Dresner v. City of Tallahassee, Fla.1964, 164 So. 2d 208; Blacharski v. Watts, Fla.App.1972, 268 So. 2d 465; Pettersen v. Nelson, Fla.App.1972, 269 So. 2d 22; Whittemore v. Dade County, Fla.1974, 292 So. 2d 363, 365. The petitioner argues that in the decision sought to be reviewed herein, the circuit court departed from essential requirements of law by h…
-
Perry v. Horton Perry, 298 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…PER CURIAM. No error or abuse of discretion has been demonstrated. We affirm. Pierson v. Sharp, 283 So. 2d 880 (4th D.C.A.Fla.1973); Blacharski v. Watts, 268 So. 2d 465 (4th D.C.A.Fla.1972); Rosenstein v. Raticoff, 265 So. 2d 387 (4th D.C.A.Fla.1972); Castaldo v. Singapore J. F. Inc., 258 So. 2d 499 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1972); Latin American Benefit Center, Inc. v. Johnstoneaux, 257 So. 2d 86 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1972); Sun Plas…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dresner v. City OF Tallahassee, 164 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 1964)
- The City OF S. BAY v. Armstrong, 188 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)